Re: contention on profile_lock

[Jesse Barnes]

On Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:51 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > John pointed out that this breaks modules.  Would registering and
> > unregistering a function pointer thus be module safe?  Dipankar,
> > hopefully you have something better?
> >
> > static int timer_start(void)
> > {
> >  /* Setup the callback pointer */
> >  oprofile_timer_notify = oprofile_timer;
> >  return 0;
> > }
>
> Surely something like (profile.c):
>
> funcptr_t timer_hook;
>
> static int register_timer_hook(funcptr_t hook)
> {
>  if (timer_hook)
>   return -EBUSY;
>  timer_hook = hook;
> }
>
> static void unregister_timer_hook(funcptr_t hook)
> {
>  WARN_ON(hook != timer_hook);
>  timer_hook = NULL;
>  /* make sure all CPUs see the NULL hook */
>  synchronize_kernel();
> }

Yes, that's much better.  Will post another one shortly.  Thanks.

Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/